Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.

1 (2008) 99-121

Discerning Corinthian Slogans through Paul's Use of the Diatribe in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20
DENNY BURK
CRISWELL COLLEGE

Commentators continue to disagree over the presence of Corinthian slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20. Yet the context and form of 6:12-20 suggest that at least some of these words should be read as interjections from real Corinthian interlocutors. In order to verify this thesis, I argue for (1) the presence ofdiatribal features in 6:1220 and (2) the features that indicate that Paul has made a special adaptation of the diatribal form to address real Corinthian interlocutors. The structure of Paul's diatribe suggests the presence of Corinthian slogans in vv. 12,13, and IS. Key Words: Paul, 1 Corinthians, diatribe, slogans

1.

INTRODUCTION

Modern commentators on 1 Corinthians have h a d to wrestle with the question of whether 6:12-20 contain Corinthian slogans to which Paul is responding. A cursory look at the commentaries reveals that the presence or absence of slogans of this sort has a dramatic effect on the exegesis of this passage. If slogans are present in this text, then some of the words that would otherwise appear to be Paul's actually belong to the Corinthians. More and more, scholars are concluding that at least some of these verses reflect slogans that were being bandied about in the Corinthian church. 1 Yet there are m a n y w h o remain skeptical. Because the resolution of this problem is indispensable to a proper interpretation of the passage, it is hoped that this study will move the discussion forward at least a little bit. Commentators have been all over the place in setting forth which parts of these verses comprise slogans and in establishing what criteria should be used for identifying slogans of this sort. As Roger Omanson has argued, at least four items present a challenge in any study of possible slogans in the book of 1 Corinthians: 1. For a summary of scholarly opinion from the late 19th century through 1965, see the helpful chart in John Coolidge Hurd Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 68.

100

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1 (1) interpreters usually do not state clearly how they have determined that Paul is quoting someone else's words; (2) there is no agreement among translators and commentators on which verses are quotations, nor is there agreement on where each quotation begins and ends; (3) translators do not agree on the sources of the quotations; and (4) there is no agreement on how to translate key words in several of the quotations.2

Of Omanson's four challenges, no doubt the most critical problem is the first: "interpreters usually do not state clearly how they have determined that Paul is quoting someone else's words." In other words, commentators routinely assume portions of 1 Corinthians to be slogans, but they do not give the reasons that they think texts of this sort should be construed as quotations. This oversight has proven to be particularly problematic in 1 Cor 6:12-20, in which none of the potential slogans are clearly intro duced as quoted material (as in 1 Cor 1:12 and 7:1). Brian Dodd, therefore, has argued that if there is no marking at all, we must start with the as sumption that there is no quotation. In the absence of clear markers of quoted material, the burden of proof falls on individuals who want to identify parts of the text as slogans.3 Yet I will argue that the burden of proof actually falls on those who would argue that there are no slogans in this text. Statements such as Dodd's erroneously assume that that the conventions for marking quoted material in Greek are always explicit and verbal (such as we find 1:12 and 7:1).4 Sometimes speakers and writers can signal quoted material in ex tremely subtle ways without losing the clear reference to a quoted source. For instance, we see this principle demonstrated in English usage every time a person repeats the phrase We the people. The phrase is an unambig uous quotation of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and requires no in troductory formula for native English speakers in the U.S. to understand it as such. In this instance, the indicators of quoted material do not include an explicit signal such as, "The Preamble of the Constitution says." Likewise, it is very likely that the native hearer and reader of Greek could have picked up on a wide variety of subtle, inexplicit signals of quoted material. I will show that signals of this sort exist in 1 Cor 6:12-20. Specifically, Paul uses a special adaptation of diatribal form to signal the presence of quoted material. Paul adapts this form in a unique way to ad dress the particular situation at Corinth. Because the chief characteristic of
2. Roger L. Omanson, "Acknowledging Paul's Quotations" BT 43 (1992): 201. 3. Brian J. Dodd, "Paul's Paradigmatic and 1 Corinthians 6:12" JSNT 59 (1995): 44: "Paul usually introduces his citations in 1 Corinthians, leaving the burden of proof on those who want to identify parts of his text as quotations which he does not identify as such M. V. Fox's observation applies: 'If there is no marking at all, we must start with the assumption that there is no quotation/" Yet Dodd's critique applies rather strictly to 6:12. It is difficult to see how his approach could make sense of 6:13ff without a very strained exegesis. 4. Brian J. Dodd, "Paul's Paradigmatic , " 39: "Verbal markers of a citation are absent."

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

101

the diatribe style is dialogue and because Paul addresses a real situation in Corinth, the burden of proof lies on the interpreters who wish to attribute all of these words to Paul while allowing none to have originated with the Corinthians (contra Brian Dodd and, more recently, David Garland). 5 I will show that the context and form of 6:12-20 suggest that we should read at least some of these words as interjections from real Corinthian interlocutors. In order to verify this thesis, I will need to demonstrate two things: (1) the presence of diatribal features in 6:12-20 and (2) the features that indicate that Paul has made a special adaptation of the diatribal form to address real Corinthian interlocutors. Even though there is a growing consensus among commentators that slogans appear in vv. 12 and 13, the verdict is still out on v. 18.6 Jerome Murphy-O'Connor has given what is perhaps the most thorough exposition and defense of understanding part of v. 18 as a Corinthian slogan.7 Murphy-O'Connor has proposed the following dialogue in v. 18, part of which is a Corinthian slogan. Paul: "Shun immorality/' Corinthians: "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body/7 Paul: "On the contrary, the immoral man sins against his own body."8 I do not intend to give a final judgment on Murphy-O'Connor's proposal. But I do intend to show that the presence of diatribal features in 6:12-20 increases the likelihood that his reconstruction of the dialogue between Paul and the Corinthians is correct. By the end of this short article, therefore, I
5. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003). 6. Conzelmann, Fee, and Thiselton are typical among individuals who do not read a slogan in v. 18b (Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians [trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 112; Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 262; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 471-73). 7. Apparently, the first to argue that 6:18 is a slogan were W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (new ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 392. For a full summary of the history of this interpretation until the pivotal work of Jerome MurphyO'Connor, see Murphy-O'Connor's "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20," CBQ 40 (1978): 39196. O'Connor gave what has become the best argument for interpreting 6:18b as a Corinthian slogan. Jay Smith's summary of the current state of the discussion is apt: "The reception of Murphy-O'Connor's proposal has been mixed. On the one hand, David Garland, Andreas Lindemann, Wolfgang Schrge, Christophe Senft, Anthony Thiselton, and Christian Wolff are not persuaded. On the other hand, Raymond Collins, Richard Hays, Richard Horsley, and Charles Talbert consider it the most satisfactory solution to date. Somewhere in between are C. K. Barrett, Gordon Fee, and Marion Soards, who find the proposal attractive but in the end remain unconvinced" ("The Roots of a Libertine Slogan in 1 Cor 6:18" [paper presented at the British NT Conference 2005: Social World of the NT Seminar, Liverpool, Eng.: 1-3 September 2005], 2). 8. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, 1 Corinthians (New Testament Message; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1979), 51; cf. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20," 393.

102

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

hope to have increased the plausibility of the thesis that slogans occur in vv. 12,13, and 18.9 If 6:12-20 comprises a diatribe, then the form would suggest at least part of v. 18 to be a Corinthian slogan. So the argument of this article will proceed in three stages. First, I will show that certain formal features in this text belong to the diatribe style. Second, I will show that Paul adapts the diatribe form in a unique way to address the particular situation at Corinth. Thus, Paul's interlocutors are not rhetorical or imaginary but rep resent real voices in the Corinthian church. Third, I will set forth a brief exegesis of this text based on the presence of three slogans.
2. FORMAL FEATURES OF DIATRIBE

IN 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20

Many commentators have noted the presence of diatribal features in 1 Cor 6:12-20, yet very few have discussed the specifics of these features and what they imply about the so-called slogans. Stanley K. Stowers has pro duced what is perhaps the definitive work on the diatribal form. 10 His de scription of the diatribe has garnered a wide following (virtually a consensus) and has replaced that of Rudolf Bultmann. 11 Subsequent treat9 I am following Jay Smith m what I hope to accomplish m this paper This article will not establish Murphy-O'Connor's thesis, but I think it will increase its likelihood (Jay Smith, "Roots of a Libertine Slogan m 1 Cor 6 18," 2) 10 This is not to discount the outstanding work of Thomas Schmeller (Paulus und die "Di atribe" Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation [NTAbh, Munster Aschendorff, 1987]), who argues for a wider context for the Greek diatribe As R Dean Anderson notes, though Schmeller agrees with Stowers that the term was not used to describe a particular literary genre m antiquity, Schmeller criticizes Stowers's restriction of these writmgs to a school situation (Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul [rev ed, Leuven Peeters, 1999], 243) This may be a helpful refinement, but it does not overturn the basic thrust of Stowers's proposal 11 Rudolf Bultmann showed that Paul's letters shared stylistic traits with the GrecoRoman diatribe Bultmann further argued that the diatribe was a form of popular philosoph ical preachmg to the masses Thus he came to the conclusion that the diatribe style of Paul's letters reflects Paul's style and method of oral preaching "Wir schlieen daraus die Predigt des Paulus hat sich zum Teil m ahnlichen Ausdrucksformen bewegt wie die Predigt der kynisch-stoischen Popularphilosophen, wie die Diatribe" (Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der pauhnischen Predigt die kynisch-stoische Diatribe [FRLANT, Gottmgen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910], 107, see the concise discussion in Stanley Stowers, "The Diatribe," in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament Selected Forms and Genres [ed D E Aune, Atlanta Scholars Press, 1988], 73, idem, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans [SBLDS, ed William Baird, Chico, CA Scholars Press, 1981], 17-26) Stowers demonstrates (contra Bultmann) that the dia tribe form did not belong to the polemical style of the Cynic-Stoic street teachers but mstead "the style evokes the student-teacher relationship and the situation of the philosophical school" (Stowers, "Diatribe," 73) "Above all, it is an unfortunate misuse to equate diatribe with 'popular-philosophical' literature m general This only obscures and confuses the issues of definition 'Diatribe' can only be a useful concept if we use it m a way which approximates an cient usage A term for teachmg activity m schools, literary imitations of that activity, or for writings which employ the rhetorical and pedagogical style typical of diatribes m the schools" (Stowers, "Diatribe," 73, cf Stowers, The Diatribe, 175) Stowers's thesis has shown that Paul's dialogues in Romans tell us nothing about the situation in Rome because his "interlocutors"

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

103

ments that have built on Stowers's work have shown that the following elements occur in the Greco-Roman diatribe: vivid dialogue mode, imag inary second-person interlocutors, objections/false conclusions, charac teristic rejection phrases (especially ), and vocative apostrophes such as .12 All of these features need not be present in every di atribe, but we can identify at least four of them in 1 Cor 6:12-20. First there is the presence of the phrase in v. 15. In only one instance in the NT is used outside of diatribal texts (Luke 20:16). Every other instance occurs in Paul's writings (mostly Romans) and fea tures as a part of his diatribe. 13 Rom 3:4: May it never bel Rather, let God be found true, though every man [be found] a liar, as it is written, Rom 3:6: May it never bel For otherwise how will God judge the world? Rom 3:31: Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never bel Rom 6:2: May it never bel How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Rom 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never bel Rom 7:7: What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never bel Rom 7:13: Therefore did that which is good become death for me? May it never bel Rom 9:14: What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! Rom 11:1: I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never bel Rom 11:11: I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never bel Gal 2:17: But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we our selves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never bel Gal 3:21 : Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never bel

are fictitious. Stowers writes, "It is crucial to understand that the imaginary interlocutor in the diatribe and Romans is not an opponent but a student or fellow discussion partner. The mode of discourse is not polemic, where one tries to do damage to an opponent and his credibility, but rather indictment (), where a person exposes error in order to lead someone to the truth. Thus, the apostrophes in 2:1-5 and 17-24 should not be understood as part of a sup posed Pauline polemic against Judaism or judaizers" (Stowers, The Diatribe, 117). 12. Changwon Song, Reading Romans as Diatribe (Studies in Biblical Literature; ed. Hemchand Gossai; New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 260-61. 13. Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; 3:21. One possible ex ception is Gal 6:14: "But may it never be ( ) that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."

104

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

As these verses illustrate, is the watchword of the diatribal mode in Paul's writings. Because of Paul's (and Epictetus's) 14 almost ex clusive use of this phrase in diatribe elsewhere, the presence of this phrase is by itself enough to warrant the strong prejudice that Paul has entered into his diatribe mode in 1 Cor 6:15. Second, v. 15 also shows an objection/false conclusion. This is, of course, closely related to the former point because appears in order to reject objections/false conclusions of this sort. Abraham Malherbe has shown that is part of a larger form that includes objec tions/false conclusions that are introduced by particles such as or . 15 This part of the form appears in Paul's statement, "Shall I then [] take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot?" ( ). Third, Malherbe has also shown that statements such as "Do you not know" ( ) frequently follow the (cf. Rom 6:3,16).16 The "do you not know" formula occurs three times in 1 Cor 6:12-20: (15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? . . . (16) Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body? . . . (19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Cor 6:15,16,19). In each instance, signals a rhetorical question that functions as a supporting statement for Paul's rejection of the interlocutor's false inference. Fourth, the final formal feature of the diatribe in this text is the sec ond-person address. A typical expression of this form in Romans is Paul's address to the interlocutor in Rom 2:1-5: (1) Therefore you are () without excuse, every man who passes judg ment, for in that you judge () another, you condemn yourself ( ); for you who judge practice () the same things. (2) And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. (3) And do you suppose () this, O man, who passes judgment upon those who practice such things and does the same things, that you will escape ( ) the judg ment of God? (4) Or do you think lightly () of the riches of
14 Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis Fortress, 1989), 32 "Paul's use of m genoito does not have a counterpart m the pagan diatribe m general but does m Epictetus " 15 Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 27 "Like Epictetus, Paul uses h oun, but does so only once (Rom 6 15) eroumen (Rom 3 5) and h oun eroumen ('What then shall we say 7 ', Rom 6 1, 7 7, 9 14) are not part of the objections themselves, while oun (Rom 3 31,7 13,1 Cor 6 15, Gal 3 21), lego oun ('Am I saymg, then/ Rom 11 1,11) and ara ('then/ Gal 2 17) are part of the objections gar ('What then 7 ') is used once (Rom 3 3) " Malherbe's essay was originally published m HTR 73 (1980) 231-40 16 Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 29-30

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20 His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you () to repentance? (5) But because of your () stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up ( ) wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. In 1 Cor 6:12-20, there are at least ten addresses in the second person. (15) Do you not know ( ) that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! (16) Or do you not know ( ) that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body [with her]? For He says, 'The two will become one flesh." (17) But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit [with Him]. (18) Flee im morality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. (19) Or do you not know ( ) that your () body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you (), whom you have () from God, and that you are not ( ) your own? (20) For you have been bought () with a price: therefore glorify () God in your () body.

105

Of course, the presence of the second person by itself does not necessarily mean that the diatribal form is being used. But the second-person address in rhetorical questions that are in combination with these other features does. If these characteristics do in fact point to the presence of a diatribe in 1 Cor 6:12-20, then we must acknowledge that what we have before us is dialogical, not monologicai. In other words, Paul is having a back-and-forth conversation with an interlocutor. This text, therefore, is not reflecting a merely one-way exposition on the part of the Apostle Paul. Diatribe im plies dialogue. In fact, the chief feature of the diatribe form is dialogue. The expectation that we bring to this text, therefore, is that we will be hearing not just Paul's voice but also the voice of a conversation partner (whether imaginary or real). Thus, Brian Dodd's argument that says where there is no marking, there is no quotation does not apply to this text. The origi nal hearers would have picked up on these formal features of the diatribe and would have been alerted to the presence of dialogue. Thus, it is no sur prise that we hear not just Paul but someone else's voice in this text. The question is whether the other voice that we hear will be the voice of an imaginary interlocutor or a real one.
3. FEATURES T H A T INDICATE A SPECIAL ADAPTATION OF THE DIATRIBAL FORM

There are clear indications in this text that Paul is making a special adap tation of the diatribal mode such that his second-person addressees and in terlocutors reflect real voices in the Corinthian community. In the typical Pauline diatribe, as one would read in the book of Romans, the interlocutor

106

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

is clearly imaginarya rhetorical "voice" brought in to advance Paul's ar gument. What we find in the wider context of 1 Corinthians, however, is that Paul's dialogue partners are anything but imaginary. In fact, it is widely known that 1 Corinthians may well be the most "occasional" of Paul's "occasional" letters. That is, the whole structure of the book is dic tated by the situation in the Corinthian church. In fact, we see that there are many "situations" in the Corinthian church of which Paul has caught wind. Paul gives numerous indications throughout the letter that his writing is a direct response to the oral (1:11; 5:1; 11:18) and written (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1,12)17 reports that he has received since his founding visit to Corinth.
ORAL REPORTS:

1:11: For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's [people,] that there are quarrels among you. 5:1: It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 11:18: For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it.
WRITTEN REPORTS:

7:1: Now concerning ( ) the things about which you wrote, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman." Thus, when we come across a diatribal text like 1 Cor 6:12-20, the wider context of the book compels us not to anticipate imaginary interloc utors but very real ones. It is for this reason that David Aune writes, "Di atribe style occurs only occasionally in 1 Corinthians and Galatians because [Paul] is more familiar with the local situation and tailors his advice more directly to the epistolary situation." 18 Duane F. Watson agrees, saying that "teaching through diatribe does not preclude addressing a concrete situa tion. . . . This is certainly true of Galatians and 1 Corinthians, where dia 19 tribal elements address the situations of respective congregations." Or, as Richard Hays has put it, even though the diatribal form is by nature evok17. Though it is clear in 7:1 that introduces Paul's response to an issue raised in a previous letter Paul had received from Corinth, Margaret Mitchell has argued that may not be referring to this letter in subsequent instances (see 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1,12). Nevertheless, she has shown that " does provide a clue to the composition of 1 Corinthians in that it is one of the ways in which Paul introduces the topic of the next argument or sub-argument... it is our most important clue to understand how Paul, on his own terms, chose to respond to the multi-faceted situation at Corinth of which he had been informed" (Margaret M. Mitchell, "Concerning in 1 Corinthians," NovT 31 [1989]: 256). Thus, does seem to indicate a response on Paul's part to what he has learned is happening in the Corinthian church. 18. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Chris tianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 201-2. 19. Duane F. Watson, "Diatribe," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Haw thorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1993), 214. Wat son lists 1 Cor 6:12-20,15:29-41, Gal 3:1-9, and 19-22 as texts that exhibit diatribal elements.

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

107

ing an "imaginary conversation/' the different 'Voices" in the conversation reflect real "voices" in the Corinthian community. 20 The immediate context of 6:12-20 also confirms that Paul addresses concrete situations in the Corinthian church. In chap. 5, he confronts the man sleeping with his stepmother, and then he follows by rebuking the Co rinthians for taking each other to court in 6:1-11. In 7:1, he introduces a sec tion of the letter that addresses the issues that the Corinthians themselves had raised in a previous letter. Throughout, the letter exudes Paul's concern for specific issues within the Corinthian congregation. Given Paul's strat egy in the letter, it would be strange indeed to construe 6:12-20 as anything but an address to a live issue within the Corinthian community. 21 In addition to the wider context of 1 Corinthians, there is another rea son within the verses themselves that indicates that Paul is speaking to a real situation in the Corinthian church. To begin with, all of Paul's secondperson references in this text are plurala fact that does not always come across clearly in English translation. So if one is only looking at an English translation, he or she might mistake the plural "you" of 1 Cor 6:12-20 with the singular "you" of Paul's other diatribal texts. 22 Rom 9:19-20 and 2:1725 are typical of Paul's use of the second-person singular in his diatribe. Rom 9:19: You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" (20) On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
20. Richard Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 101: "Paul here adopts the diatribe style, in which he constructs an imaginary dialogue between himself and his Corinthian hearers. To understand the line of argument, we must reconstruct the different voices in this imaginary conversation." 21. Yet some are not convinced of this. For instance, Hurd argues that in this passage, Paul "does not refer to any specific action of the Corinthians" (Hurd, The Origin ofl Corinthians, 86). Hurd believes that there is no new subject in this text but that 6:12-20 is just a continuation of 5:1-13 (ibid., . 5). Gordon Fee notes that the standard view of some older commentaries was that after an aside about lawsuits in 6:1-11, Paul comes back to the issue of sexual immorality in 6:12-20. In these older treatments, Paul is giving a "general theological argument" that de velops out of the specific situation of 5:1-13 (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 250 n. 10). Yet Fee correctly argues that the presence of Corinthian slogans in vv. 12-13 and the explicit mention of prostitutes in vv. 15-16 make this view unlikely (ibid., . 11; contra Will Deming, "The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6 " JBL 115 (1996): 289-312; Ruth Kempthorne, "Incest and the Body of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians VI.12-20," NTS 14 [1967/68]: 568-69). Brian Rosner provides an overview of the different historical settings that scholars have proposed and cor rectly argues for the following setting: "Paul is opposing the use of prostitutes, not, strictly speaking, of either the sacred or the secular variety, but rather the prostitutes who offered their services after festive occasions in pagan temples" ("Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:1220," NovT 60 [1998]: 337). 22. For some reason, Stanley Stowers makes this mistake when he refers to Paul's inter locutors in 1 Cor 6:12-20 as a singular "imaginary opponent," even though Paul unambigu ously puts his addresses in the second-person plural (Stanley K. Stowers, "A 'Debate' over Freedom: 1 Corinthians 6:12-20," in Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor ofLeMoine G. Lewis [ed. E. Ferguson; Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Bookstore, 1981], 68).

108

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1 Rom 2:17-25: But if you bear the name "Jew," and rely upon the Law, and boast in God, (18) and know [His] will, and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, (19) and are confi dent that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, (20) a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, (21) you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal? (22) You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? (23) You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? (24) For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," just as it is written. (25) For indeed circumcision is of value, if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

In these verses, the second-person references are singular in the Greek text. Yet in 1 Cor 6:12-20, the second person references are all plural. This is in keeping with Paul's diatribal form elsewhere, in which Paul never uses with the second-person singular. 23 The use of the secondperson plural obviously suits his purpose of addressing a concrete situa tion that involves more than one person in the Corinthian community. But do the overall strategy of 1 Corinthians and the use of the secondperson-plural form really require that Paul's speech be understood as a dialogue with real interlocutors as opposed to imaginary ones? In his wa tershed work on the diatribe in Romans, Stanley Stowers writes concern ing the role of the "fictitious Objector": It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the author intended for his objection or false conclusions to be the words of an imaginary in terlocutor. In the sources which record oral speech much has been lost which was communicated through intonation and gesture. There are a few instances where real objections from the audience seem to oc cur in Epictetus and Dio, but again, it is very difficult to determine 24 this with certainty. In other words, some of the markers of direct quotation (such as markers that Dodd says are required) are lost to us as normative readers of a dead version of the Greek language. Some of the markers of quoted material would have been expressed through articulation since these texts were
23. Changwon Song, Reading Romans as Diatribe, 268. According to Stowers, there are two subforms in Paul's diatribe: (1) address to the imaginary interlocutor, and (2) objections and false conclusions. In the first subform, the address typically includes an apostrophic address to a person. Thus, the second-person references are singular. In the second subform, the ob jections and false conclusions are never in the second-person singular. Thus, is ex pected in contexts in which the second-person plural is used (ibid.). 24. Stowers, The Diatribe, 128. Stowers cites the following texts in which the interlocutor possibly represents "real objections from the audience": Epictetus, Diss. 1.2.26, 30; 1.14.11; (1.17.4, 5, 6,10?); 3.7.29, 32; 3.22.76; Dio Chrysostom, Or. Uli, 12, 13; 23.9.

BURK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

109

originally meant to be read aloud. Modern readers often fail to recognize this fact. The proliferation of printed Bibles in our own day makes it difficult for modern readers to relate to the oral culture that existed two millennia ago. Yet we know that both Jews and Christians of the 1st century relied on the spoken word for their scriptural training, not the written (e.g., Luke 4:16; Acts 13:15, 27; 15:21, 30-31; 2 Cor 3:14-15; Eph 3:4; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 1 Tim 4:13; Rev 1:3).25 Nevertheless, the textual clues as to how the original public reader was to read the text in the assembly would have been necessary. Even though Stowers admits the difficulty of determining whether interlocutors are real or imaginary, he does recognize the textual clues that suggest the presence of the diatribe form in 1 Cor 6:12-20. A full perspective on what Paul is doing in 6:12-20 can only be obtained through a consideration of the form of the passage. Paul employs the style of diatribe. Our text is a short dialogue between Paul and an imaginary opponent who probably represents the position of some in the Corinthian church. Using this style, Paul debates with himself and builds an argument against what he perceives as the Corinthian position.26 Stowers is certainly correct in recognizing the presence of diatribe and in noting that the interlocutor represents the Corinthian position. His statement that Paul is in dialogue with an 'Imaginary opponent" (singular!) does not give heed to the second person plurals that occur throughout the text. Nevertheless, his basic conclusion is correct: "Paul dialogues with a sloganeering interlocutor/' 27 If Stowers is correct in detecting the presence of diatribal features in 6:12-20, is it not likely, therefore, that the original readers 28 of this text would also have picked up on these features? If the original readers could discern features of this sort, then they would have been alerted to the presence of dialogue at this stage of Paul's argument. Moreover, they would have been keenly aware that Paul's dialogue presented a confrontation not to an imaginary opponent but to the Corinthian position.
25. Robert Stein has recently reminded NT scholars of the importance of remembering that the NT materials were written with the knowledge that they were to be read aloud in the Christian assembly: "Another important implication that flows out of the presupposition that Mark thought of his 'readers' as 'hearers' having his Gospel read to them, is that he wrote clearly enough that his hearers would be able to understand what he said as the Gospel was being read to them Thus Mark, and even Paul's letters, should be interpreted in light of the ability of their hearing audiences to process the information being read to them, as it was being read" (Robert H. Stein, "Our Reading of the Bible vs. the Original Audience's Hearing It," JETS 46 [2003]: 73-74). 26. Stanley K. Stowers, "A 'Debate' over Freedom: 1 Corinthians 6:12-20," in Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor ofLeMoine G. Lewis (ed. E. Ferguson; Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Bookstore, 1981), 68. 27. Stanley K. Stowers, "The Diatribe," 81. 28. By "original readers," I mean the public readers who read Paul's letter aloud to the Corinthian church.

110

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

So if I am correct, Paul's special adaptation of the diatribe in this text consists in his replacing imaginary dialogue partners with real ones. Ex cept for v. 15, the use of interlocutors in this text is not just a rhetorical de vice; the "sloganeering interlocutors" represent real voices within the Corinthian community. But if we are going to see how Paul transforms imaginary interlocutors into real ones, we have to view the more typical form of the diatribe that appears in vv. 15-18a as a template for mapping the rest of 6:12-20. In vv. 15-18a, in which we have seen the highest con centration of diatribal features, the form follows Abraham Malherbe's de scription of the structure of diatribes that use the rejection phrase . 29 Notice the three-part arrangement in fig. I. 3 0 FIGURE 1. Usual Form of Diatribe (6:15b-18a) 1. Objection from an Interlocutor Rhetorical Question: "Shall I therefore take away the members of Christ... ?" Negation: "May it never be!" Second Person Address: "Do you not know that he who unites ..."

2. Rejection phrase from Paul 3. Supporting statement from Paul

Paul adapts this usual form so that he can dialogue with the erroneous Corinthian slogans. In Paul's adaptation of the diatribe, the slogans replace the rhetorical question posed by the imaginary interlocutor in the usual form. Paul then negates the slogan through the use of an adversative par ticle, which is then followed by a counterassertion. Thus, Paul is adapting the typical form of the diatribe to address directly the situation in the Co rinthian church by quoting their slogans. Fig. 2 illustrates the adaptation of the form for the first half of v. 12. FIGURE 2. Special Adaptation of the Diatribe Form (6:12)

Corinthian Slogan: "All things are lawful for me" 2. Rejection phrase from Paul Adversative Particle: "but" 3. Supporting statement from Paul Counterassertion: "not all things are profitable."

1. Objection from an Interlocutor

29. Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 26. 30. Malherbe's essay expands on the formal features of each of these three: (1) the objec tion, (2) the rejection, and (3) the supporting statement. Malherbe says that the objection is of ten introduced with characteristic words and phrases such as , , or a simple . The objections followed by in Epictetus and Paul "are always in the form of rhetorical questions" (Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 28).

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

FIGURE 3. The Diatribe Form in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (objection)(rejection phrase)(supporting statement)(objection)(rejection phrase)(supporting statement)(objection)(objection)(rejection phrase)(supporting statement)(supporting statement)(supporting statement)(objection)(rejection phrase)(supporting statement) 12 'All things are lawful for me/ but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me." but I will not be enslaved by anything.

111

13 "Foods are for the stomach, and the stomach is for foods and God will destroy both the one and the other." But a the body is not for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body 14 and God both raised the Lord and will raise us by His power. 15a Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? 15b Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that he who unites with a prostitute is one body [with her]? For it says, "The two shall become one flesh." 17 But the one who is united to the Lord is one spirit. 18a Flee immorality! 18b "Every sin, whatever a person may do, is outside of the body." But the one who commits immorality sins against his own body. 19 OR do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you whom you have from God and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price. Therefore, glorify God with your body.

(objection)(rejection phrase)(supporting statement)(supporting statement)-

a. Fee points out that the interpretation of the three occurrences of in vv. 13-14 has given much trouble to translators. I have followed Fee's rationale for translating thefirstand third uses of as "and" (consecutive) while translating the second/middle occurrence as "but" (adversative). This translation relies in part on observing the chiastic structure of the clauses and on interpreting the middle "" as separating two propositions (Fee, First Epistle
to the Corinthians, 253-54).

I would like to suggest that this adaptation of a three-part diatribal form is carried t h r o u g h o u t the rest of 6:12-20 in the w a y illustrated b y fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows that Paul's quotation of Corinthian slogans h a s t h e same

112

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

rhetorical function that an imaginary interlocutor has. In vv. 12,13, and 18, the Corinthian slogans comprise an objection that Paul has to reject. Only in vv. 15b-18a does the diatribe appear in the customary form reflected in fig. 1 (an objection in the form of a rhetorical question, a rejection with the characteristic , and a supporting statement introduced by ). In vv. 12, 13, and 18, the objection comes in the form of a Corin thian slogan, not in the form of a rhetorical question. Following the slo gans, the rejection is implied by adversative particles: (v. 12), (v. 13), and (v. 18). Each of these particles is followed by various supporting statements, only one of which is introduced by the characteristic . All of this suggests that Paul uses a special adaptation of the diatribe that substitutes Corinthian slogans for imaginary interlocutors in vv. 12, 13, and 18. As I mentioned above, w . 15b-18a are the only lines in this passage where the diatribe takes its customary form: an objection in the form of a rhetorical question, a rejection with the characteristic , and a supporting statement introduced by . No person in the Corin thian church was actually sloganeering to the effect that the "members of Christ" should be made "the members of a harlot," and this is why Paul puts the objection of v. 15b in the form of a rhetorical question: "Shall I therefore take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harltot?" For Paul, this is the logical conclusion of the position reflected in the slogans of vv. 12 and 13, but not one that the Corinthians themselves have advocated explicitly. So Paul makes use of a rhetorical question at this point in the dialogue and breaks from quoting and responding to slogans. The important thing to note is that in vv. 12, 13, and 18, Paul inserts Corinthian slogans where we would normally expect to see rhetorical questions. Whether Paul uses a rhetorical question (v. 15b) or a Corinthian slogan (vv. 12,13, and 18), in either case the words function as an objection to the argument within the diatribe form. The objection is from an imagi nary interlocutor in v. 15b but from real ones in vv. 12,13, and 18. What I have shown so far is that Paul's use of the diatribe form makes the presence of slogans not only likely but expected. Moreover, the diatribe form suggests that the slogans would appear not only in vv. 12 and 13 but also in v. 18. If this text does in fact comprise a special adaptation of the di atribe, then the phrase "Every sin, whatever a person may do, is outside of the body" appears in precisely the place where we would expect Paul to introduce another objection. Since Paul has used slogans to form an objec tion in vv. 12 and 13, it is not unlikely that he would do so again in v. 18. Thus, the form of the diatribe in 6:12-20 suggests that v. 18 should also be understood as a Corinthian slogan.
4. EXEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20

If we accept that Paul has entered into the diatribe mode in 6:12-20, then Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's outline of the dialogue between Paul and the

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20 FIGURE 4. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's Outline of the Dialogue Sloganeering Interlocutor (12) "All things are lawful for me" "All things are lawful for me" (13) "Foods are for the stomach and the stomach is for foods but God both one and the other will destroy" Pauline Rebuttal but not all things bring together. but I will not be enslaved by anything. But the body is not for immorality but for the Lord and the Lord is for the body (14) but God both raised the Lord and will raise us by His power.

113

(15) DO YOU NOT KNOW that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! (16) DO YOU NOT KNOW that he who unites with a prostitute is one body [with her]? For it/he says, "The two shall become one flesh." (17) But the one who is united to the Lord is one spirit [with Him]. (18a) Flee immorality! (18b) "Every sin, whatever a person may do, is outside of the body." But, the one who commits immorality sins against his own body. (19) OR DO YOU NOT KNOW that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you whom you have from God and you are not your own? (20) For you were bought with a price. Therefore, glorify God with your body. sloganeering Corinthians becomes all the more plausible. In his commen tary on 1 Corinthians, Murphy-O'Connor 3 1 outlines the dialogue as de picted in fig. 4. Murphy-O'Connor's chart shows how Paul answers Corin thian objections point by point. Paul confronts the practice of immorality () in the Corinthian church by attacking the theology that is used to
31. Murphy-O'Connor, 1 Corinthians, 50-51; cf. Stanley Stowers, "A 'Debate' over Free dom," 68-69.

114

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

justify the behavior. The theology that he is attacking is reflected in the slo gans that are current among the Corinthian Christians. So Paul's procedure is to quote the slogans and then to refute them. What is important to note is the obvious rhetorical strategy of Paul to state the opposing position and then to refute it. Though this cannot be taken for granted anymore, I agree with com mentators who believe Paul is confronting some variety of Hellenistic du alism 3 2 and overrealized eschatology.33 The result of these aberrant points of view in Corinth was the proliferation of slogans that the Corinthians used to justify immoral behavior (). Paul takes up each of these three slogans in order to refute them with the gospel of the resurrected Lord, and he uses the structure of the slogans to form his own response. 34 Murphy-O'Connor's chart above shows that Paul's argument proceeds in three stages that correspond to the erroneous slogans of the Corinthians. His response shows that the gospel itself is at stake and not simply the res olution of an ethical question. 35 Therefore, he uses the gospel to argue di rectly against their false premises. A. Exegesis of 6:12 In 6:12, Paul confronts the libertine notion that "all things are permis sible" 36 with two lines that begin with , and he thus emphasizes the
32 So what is the nature of the dualism that existed in the Corinthian church 7 There are indications within the letter that "the Corinthians held on to that part of the Hellenistic body/soul or material/immaterial dualism which disdamed the physical world for the 'higher' knowledge and wisdom of spiritual existence" (Scott J Hafemann, "Corinthians, Let ters to the," m Dictionary of Paul and His Letters [ed Gerald F Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel G Red, Downers Grove, IL Inter Varsity, 1993], 174) Paul refers to the Cormthian preoccupation with "knowledge" () on several occasions throughout the letter (15, S 1,7, 10,11,12 8,13 2, 8,14 6) and names it as the source of some of the abuses of liberty that were takmg place (8 1-13) This knowledge is immaterial and is more important than the temporal, physical issues of life Therefore, the resurrection, immorality, and other corporeal matters of this sort can be dismissed as of little importance m the Christian life (6 13,15 12) 33 This dualism provided the conceptual support for the Corinthians' overrealized es chatology (Haffemann, "Corinthians," 175) The Corinthians' emphasis on the present reveals their failure to accept that a gap still existed between what they were and what they would become at the resurrection Therefore, Paul chastises them saymg, "You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kmgs without us [apostles]" (4 8) They think that because they have the Spirit they are participating m all the blessings of the eschaton The only "not yet" of God's blessmg is the shuffling off of the mortal coil of their spiritual existence, "they regarded their present spiritual existence as an assumption of that which is to be, minus the physical body" (Fee, Corinthians, 12) Thus, the doctrme of the bodily resurrection of be lievers has no place m the Cormthian mindset (15 12-18) What will become clear in the fol lowing section is that this dualism and overrealized eschatology find expression m the slogans that the Corinthians used to justify immoral behavior 34 Murphy-O'Connor, "Slogans," 394 35 Fee, Corinthians, 251 36 BDAG notes that usually carries with it a legal connotation, "all thmgs are law ful for me" ("," BDAG, 348) However, it is difficult to tell m this context if Paul is re ferring specifically to the law Fee notes the possibility that these slogans may "be closely related to the issue of idol food in chaps 8-10 It has especially close affinities with 8 8, which also

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

115

contrast that he wants to draw between his own position and theirs. First of all, whatever one believes about Christian freedom, it should not be per verted into a license to do things that do not edify spiritually.37 Secondly, Paul uses a wordplay 3 8 to make the point that one must not let one's free dom become a means of bondage. Paul will not be mastered by anything but Christ. 39 As Murphy-O'Connor writes, "Paul does not deny the state ment 'All things are lawful to me' (v. 12). He may even have said something like that himself when explaining the believer's freedom from the multiple prohibitions of Jewish law.40 What he does is to attach two restrictions which bring it into line with his understanding of Christian community." 41 B. Exegesis of 6:13-18a Having answered the libertine slogan of v. 12, Paul now turns his attack to its foundational principle, the moral irrelevance of the body (6:13). The Corinthians contend that, "Foods are for the stomach, and the stomach is for foods." 42 Paul contradicts the false implication of this creed with, "but the body 4 3 is not for sexual immorality 44 but for the Lord, and the Lord is
seems to reflect a Corinthian position. Whether Paul is himself bringing that argument of theirs to bear here, or whether they had used the same argument for both food and sex, cannot be known. Probably the latter" (Fee, Corinthians, 254). 37. connotes the idea of being profitable, "all things do not profit" ("," BDAG, 960). This usage is likely similar to the usage of 10:23, in which is parallel to and is used to talk about the spiritual edification of fellow believers. 38. and are etymologically connected, and Paul uses this relationship to enhance the rhetorical force of his position. 39. "I will not be mastered by anything," ("," BDAG, 354). Liddell- Scott -Jones renders the passive with the genitive as, "to be held under authority" ("," LSJ, 599). Similarly, "I will allow nothing to win power over me" (Werner Foerster, ", , , ," TDNT 2:575). 40. When one thinks of texts like Rom 6:14 and 7:4-6, it is not difficult to imagine how Paul's law-free gospel might have been twisted into the antinomianism represented by this Corinthian slogan. 41. Murphy-O'Connor, Corinthians, 52. 42. Each of these two clauses present datives of interest/advantage and so do the parallel clauses that follow in the rest of the verse (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 144). Or they may be dativus commodi (F. Blass and A. De brunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [trans, and rev. Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 101). 43.1 agree with Gundry's balanced assessment of the meaning of : We conclude that in neither the Pauline epistles, nor the literature of the NT outside those epistles, nor the LXX, nor extra-Biblical ancient Greek literature does the def inition "whole person" find convincing support. This is not to deny that (outside Pla tonic tradition) emphasis falls on the unity of man's being. But it is a unity of parts, inner and outer, rather than a monadic unity. Ancient writers do not usually treat soma in isolation. Rather, apart from its use for a corpse, soma refers to the physical body in its proper and intended union with the soul/spirit. The body and its coun terpart are portrayed as united but distinctand separable, though unnaturally and unwantedly separated. The soma may represent the whole person simply be cause the soma lives in union with the soul/spirit. But soma does not mean "whole person," because its use is designed to call attention to the physical object which is

116

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

for the body." How is it that the Lord is for the body? Paul answers this question in his rebuttal to the second half of the Corinthians' slogan, "but God will destroy both the stomach and the foods." The Corinthians argued that because God allows the destruction of the physical body, it follows that the physical body is morally irrelevant. As Ben Witherington has ob served, "Many Corinthian Christians apparently thought that salvation did not involve the body." 45 But Paul attacks this logic in v. 14 with the gospel truth that death is not the ultimate end of the believer's body; res urrection is the ultimate end for the believer.46 For Paul, as surely as the Lord was bodily resurrected, so shall his people be bodily resurrected in the eschaton. The efficient cause of both of these resurrections is God's power. 47 The Lord is for the body in that he will raise it up on the last day. In 6:15, Paul asks, "Do you not know that your bodies are members 4 8 of Christ 4 9 ?" In this case, the signals a rhetorical question that functions as a supporting statement for what he has been arguing up to this point. In other words, Paul argues that the believer's physical body comprises Christ's members or limbs. When the believer engages his body in sexual immorality, he or she is involving Christ's own members in the illicit act. This is why he asks, "Therefore, 50 shall I take u p 5 1 the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?" 5 2 This question is hypo thetical because Paul wishes to expose the real meaning of a libertarian willingness to sleep with a prostitute, even though the Corinthians have not reached this conclusion yet for themselves. Sleeping with a prostitute has the unconscionable result of involving Christ's body in a sinful act. So Paul answers his own rhetorical question with the emphatic " ,"
the body of the person rather than to the whole personality Where used of whole people, soma directs attention to their bodies, not to the wholeness of their being (Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology [Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1976], 79-80) 44 I take as any form of "unlawful sexual intercourse" ("," BDAG, 854), although it may m this mstance be a specific reference to havmg sex with a prostitute 45 Ben Withermgton III, Conflict & Community in Corinth A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1995), 164 n 11 46 Of course, and both refer m this context to the raising up m resurrec tion from physical death to physical life ("," BDAG, 271, "," 346) 47 In this verse, with the genitive is a marker of instrumentality that signals the means by which bodily resurrection is effected ("," BDAG, 224) Paul elsewhere identifies the "power" of God as the efficient cause of bodily resurrection (e g, Rom 1 4,1 Cor 15 43,2 Cor 4 7,13 4, Phil 3 10) 48 is typically used to refer to the limbs or parts of the human body However, this term is used metaphorically to refer to a part as a member of a whole Figuratively speakmg, the individual Christians are members of Christ, and together they form his body ("," BDAG, 628) 49 is a partitive gemtive The genitive noun denotes the whole of which the head noun is a part (BDF, 164, 90, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 84) 50 Inferential (BDF, 451, 234, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 673) 51 I have translated this verbal as a participle of attendant circumstance (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 640-43) 52 This is another partitive genitive

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

117

the strongest possible way to reject a proposition and a sure marker of the diatribe style. 1 Cor 6:15-17 explains how it could be that Christ's members could be made to become the appendages of a prostitute: "Do you not know that the one who joins 53 himself to a prostitute is one 5 4 body [with her]?" This union of bodies and thus the union of Christ's members with the members of a prostitute is grounded in the declaration of Gen 2:24, "For 5 5 he/it says, 'the two shall become one flesh'" (6:16b). Moral or immoral, according to Genesis, sexual intercourse effects a union between two people. Therefore, it is unthinkable to Paul that a Christian should unite his own body, a member of Christ, to a harlot. After all, "the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit [with Him]" (6:17).56 Therefore, Paul issues the solemn command, "Flee immorality" (6:18a).57 C. Exegesis of 6:18b-20 The last slogan Paul deals with in his diatribe occurs in 6:18b, "Every sin, whatever a person may commit, is outside 5 8 of the body." Many trans lators and commentators add the word "other," because without a quali fication of this sort, the next part of the verse seems to contradict the first. These commentators do not identify a slogan in 18b, and they understand Paul to be speaking of as a sin different from all others. 5 9 The only problem with this translation is that there is absolutely no exegetical justification for adding the word "other" except that commen tators have difficulty explaining the meaning of the verse without it. With out adding "other" to the translation, the phrase becomes an impenetrable mystery if construed literally as Paul's words. Gordon Fee tries to justify
53. "Join oneself to, join, cling to, associate with" ("," BDAG, 555-56). 54. "One" in contrast to the parts of which a whole is made up (", , ," BDAG, 291). 55. This is a causal conjunction, and it gives the ground or reason for the preceding clause (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 674). 56. "In light of vv. 19-20, Paul probably is referring to the work of the Spirit, whereby through the 'one Spirit' the believer's 'spirit' has been joined indissolubly with Christ. The be liever is united to the Lord and thereby has become one S/spirit with him" (Fee, Corinthians, 260). 57. The verb is a present imperative, which is used to commend general precepts con cerning attitude and conduct; it has a durative force (BDF, 335; 336, 172). "The traditional distinction of general precept versus specific command goes a long way towards explaining aspectual usage in New Testament commands and prohibitions. Thus, present imperatives are the most common usage in New Testament epistles and discourses, where 'rules for life' or 'whenever'-type commands are given In narrative it is more common to find aorists, since the sense is often 'do this act on this occasion', but without intention to govern behavior more broadly. A number of exceptions to this do occur but the exceptions fall into predictable pat terns" (Fanning, "Approaches to Verbal Aspect," in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics [ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSOTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 55). 58. The adverb functions as a preposition with the genitive ("," BDAG, 311). 59. See, for instance, Will Deming, who hypothesizes the ideological roots of a position of this sort: "Paul's contention that porneia is not like other sins may reflect the Stoic dispute over the equality of sins Paul, like some Stoics, may be arguing that all sins are not equal" (Will Deming, "The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6," JBL 115 [1996]: 304 n. 55).

118

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

his adding the word other by arguing that, "the de ('but') is exceptive, qualifying 'every sin' to mean 'every other sin' except the one spoken of in this clause." 60 Yet I have surveyed all the major grammars for information about the so-called exceptive use of , and I have yet to find any that speak of it. 6 1 Most of the grammars simply confirm the usage outlined in BDAG, "one of the most common Gk. particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation."61 Thus, if one is going to argue that Paul intended "other" to be understood, then we are forced to agree with Richard Hays that Paul is using language impre cisely,63 because to insert "other" is to posit a meaning that falls outside the norms of language for the terms and the syntax of this verse. As I discussed above, the Corinthians contend in this slogan that the physical body is morally insignificant and cannot be used as an instrument of sin. This reading is confirmed when we compare the phrase to Paul's use of the same phrase in 2 Cor 12:2, in which it is likely that is synonymous with the phrase ("apart from the body") in the following verse. Thus, the Corinthians ap parently believed that sin was "apart from the body" in the sense that the physical body is morally irrelevant in the divine reckoning of things. As Jerome Murphy-O'Connor has so aptly put it, "This is not to say that the Corinthians denied the possibility of sin. Sin was possible but only on the level of motive and intention, and they refused to concede that these could be evaluated on the basis of the actions in which they were embodied. Hence, 'every sin which a man may commit is outside the body.'" 6 4
60. Fee, Corinthians, 262. 61. Fee may be following Robert Gundry's "exceptive contrast" interpretation of (Rob ert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, 73-74). This is picked up by other writers such as Bruce Fisk, " as Body Violation: The Unique Nature of Sexual Sin in 1 Corin thians 6:18," NTS 42 (1996): 544. Fisk appeals to BDF 480, 1, and 306, 5, to support the in terpretation that has been omitted by ellipsis and that "other" should be added (ibid., . 8). Thus, Fisk argues that the omission is a "specifically Greek" idiom and "syntactically pre dictable," leaving no grounds for taking 1 Cor 6:18 as anything other than Paul's words (ibid., 544). Whatever one thinks about the possibility of an elliptical "other" in other NT contexts, J. William Johnston has completely overturned the possibility of this interpretation for 1 Cor 6:18. Johnston's massive study of in the NT has shown that there can be no "exceptions" implied in 1 Cor 6:18 (The Use of in the New Testament [Studies in Biblical Greek 11; ed. D. A. Carson; New York: Peter Lang, 2004], 148-57). Johnston writes, "To imply 'other' calls for a reading of in 1 Cor 6:18b in the summative rather than implicative sense. The syntax of the present passage suggests a distributive sense with implicative scope" (ibid., 152). Or to put it in layman's terms, in 1 Cor 6:18, "all" means "all without exception." 62. "," BDAG, 213, italics mine. 63. Richard Hays, First Corinthians, 105: "There are two ways to interpret this puzzling remark. The first way is to take it as the first half of a comparison that asserts fornication to be somehow worse than all other sins, or at least more body-related. This is the option adopted by the Niv: 'All other sins a man commits are outside the body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.' The word other is not in the Greek text; this interpretation assumes that Paul has expressed himself imprecisely. The other possible interpretation is to take this sen tence as one more quotation of a Corinthian slogan in the imagined diatribal dialogue." 64. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, 1 Corinthians, 51.

BuRK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

119

Paul's answer to this slogan is direct: "but the one who commits im morality sins against 6 5 his own body." In other words, the Corinthians are wrong about the moral value of the physical body. The body does matter both now and in the age to come. Verse 14 has already shown how the res urrection makes the body matter for the age to come, but v. 19 shows why the body is morally relevant in the present. The reason is that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. "Or do you not know that your body 6 6 is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, whom 6 7 you have from God, and [do you not know] that you are not your own?" 6 8 Paul argues that the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer's body, and this fact makes the physical body of utmost importance in the present age. Because the Holy Spirit resides within the temple of the believer's body, the believer has no ultimate claim to ownership over his body. Verse 20 gives the ground of this statement: "For 6 9 you were bought at a price." 7 0 Paul reminds the Corinthians that they do not own themselves. God owns them because he bought them at the cost of His Son. And God's indwelling Spirit dwells in the Corinthians as a guarantee of final redemption. As Paul has argued elsewhere, the presence of the indwelling Spirit is the ground of the believer's hope that God will resurrect his/her body. 71 Therefore, Paul concludes with the emphatic imperative, "Therefore, 72 glorify God with your body." In other words, "do not use your body for immorality, but for the Lord." As Gordon Fee summarizes, "Paul's point is that the physical union of a believer with a prostitute is not possible because the believer's body already belongs to the Lord, through whose resurrection one's body has become a 'member' of Christ by his Spirit." 73

65. can be taken one of three ways here: (1) as a marker of instrumentality, "by" or "with," (2) as a marker of a specific point of reference, "for," "to," "with respect to," "with ref erence to," or (3) as referring to actions or feelings directed in someone's direction in a friendly or hostile sense, "for," or "against" ("," BDAG, 290-91). However one takes it, the important thing to remember is that the body is indeed involved in the sin of sexual immorality, contrary to what the Corinthians held. 66. appears here in the distributed singularsomething belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular (Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963], 23). 67. The relative pronoun appears in the genitive instead of the accusative because of attraction to the case of its antecedent (" ," BDAG, 726). 68. is a part of the question because it is coordinated with the previous clause by . 69. Causal conjunction. 70. refers to the amount at which something is valued, "price, value" ("," BDAG, 1005). 71. Rom 8:11: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." 72. is a marker that invites attention to what is being said. With exhortations or com mands, it gives a sense of greater urgency, "now," "then," "therefore" ("," BDAG, 222). 73. Fee, Corinthians, 260.

120

Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.1

In summary, 15:12 makes clear that there were apparently some in the Corinthian community who were denying the future resurrection of the body. 74 The slogans in 6:12-20, therefore, reflect a desire on the part of some in the Corinthian community who wanted to justify their immorality based on a belief that the physical body is morally irrelevant and does not figure into Christ's redemptive work in the present or in the eschaton. So with the citation of each slogan, Paul refutes the false doctrine with the gospel. For Paul, Christ's resurrection guarantees and grounds the be liever's own resurrection at the end of the age. Or, in Paul's words, "Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power" (6:14). This breaking up of the resurrection into the already of Jesus' bodily resurrection and the not yet of the believer's resurrection grounds present bodily existence in the expectation of a better bodily existence that is to come. 75 The end result is that Paul uses his diatribe to give the reader a foretaste of what he will expound in full in chap. 15the certainty of bodily resurrection. But in this text, Paul appeals to this hope of bodily res urrection to confront the bodily sin of .
5. CONCLUSION

I have attempted to show three things in this article. First, I have argued that certain formal features in 1 Cor 6:12-20 belong to the diatribe style. Second, I have maintained that Paul has adapted the diatribe form in a unique way to address the particular situation at Corinth. This special ad aptation of the form means that Paul's interlocutors are not rhetorical or imaginary but represent real voices in the Corinthian church. Third, I have set forth a brief exegesis of the text based on the presence of slogans in vv. 12,13, and 18. Reading 6:12-20 as a diatribe increases the likelihood of Je rome Murphy-O'Connor's reconstruction of Paul's dialogue with the Co rinthians. One final note regards the translation of this passage. If scholarly con sensus does move in the direction of Murphy-O'Connor's proposal, then Bible translations need to reflect an interpretation of this sort. Because the original readers would have picked up on the subtle indicators of quoted material, the modern translator has the responsibility to include indicators that Paul is quoting the Corinthians. The best way for the translator to rep resent the presence of Corinthian slogans is through the use of English quotation marks. Thus, I suggest a translation along the following lines: (12) "All things are lawful for me." But not all things bring together. "All things are lawful for me." But I will not be enslaved by anything. (13) "The foods are for the stomach, and the stomach is for the foods.
74 1 Cor 15 12 "How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead 7 " 75 Wright makes precisely this pomt m his comments on this passage, even though he misses the Cormthian slogan m 18 (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol 3 The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis Fortress, 2003], 289-90)

BURK: Discerning Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20 And God will destroy both the one and the other." But the body is not for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. (14) And God both raised the Lord and will raise us by His power. (15a) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? (15b) Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! (16) Do you not know that he who unites with a prostitute is one body [with her]? For it/he says, "The two shall become one flesh." (17) But the one who is united to the Lord is one spirit [with Him]. (18a) Flee immorality! (18b) "Every sin, whatever a person may do, is outside of the body." But, the one who commits immorality sins against his own body. (19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you whom you have from God and you are not your own? (20) For you were bought with a price. Therefore, glorify God with your body.

121

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.